Lakshmanan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
EmailAppeal: (Crl. Appeal No. 857 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4212/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4212/2000)
Petitioner: Lakshmanan
Respondent: State of Tamil Nadu
Apeal: (Crl. Appeal No. 857 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4212/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4212/2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 24, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304-A – Sentence – Conviction – Accident in morning hours – 75 years old lady trying to cross road in bazar – No evidence to show if bazar was without activity – Lady dragged to 22 feet – Contributory negligence – Effects – Speed – If not a criteria. Held that evidence shows that speed was high and accused was not in control of vehicle. Contributory negligence is not a permissible defence, but a factor which affects the quantum of sentence. Sentence reduced to 3 months. (Paras 3 to 6)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 304-A – Sentence – Conviction – Accident in morning hours – 75 years old lady trying to cross road in bazar – No evidence to show if bazar was without activity – Lady dragged to 22 feet – Contributory negligence – Effects – Speed – If not a criteria. Held that evidence shows that speed was high and accused was not in control of vehicle. Contributory negligence is not a permissible defence, but a factor which affects the quantum of sentence. Sentence reduced to 3 months. (Paras 3 to 6)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. It is the admitted case that the appellant drove a bus during the morning of 31.7.1995 and knocked down a 75 years old lady who died subsequently on account of the injuries sustained by her. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years. This was confirmed by the appellate court. When he filed a revision before the High Court, a learned single judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to RI for one year.
3. An endeavour was made to show that speed is not a criteria when a stage carriage bus was moving on the road. We would have appreciated the argument if the location of the accident was also favourable to the appellant. We have come across from evidence that the accident happened in a bazar. No attempt was made by the appellant to show that during the particular time when the accident happened, the bazar was not bustling with activities. We have no reason to think that the bazar would have remained deserted of traders, hawkers and other people during the morning hours. If so, the appellant was duty bound while driving a bus along that place to slow down the vehicle to such an extent as to be in complete control of the vehicle. Movements of the pedestrians or other people can be expected at any time this way or that at the place and hence, the speed should only have been such that a sudden application of the break should bring a complete stop to the vehicle then and there.
4. A perusal of the mahazar shows that the old lady was dragged by the bus after hitting her for a distance of 22 feet. This shows that the bus was at a high speed through a zone where the speed should have been considerably less.
5. We are not therefore inclined to interfere with the conviction passed by the courts below. Learned counsel then made a plea for reduction of the sentence for which he advanced the admitted case that the lady was trying to go across the road. We do countenance the position that there was a little bit of contribution from the side of the deceased though that is not a permissible defence in an action for rash and negligent driving. Nonetheless, that is a factor which should be taken into consideration while quantifying the sentence.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we think that simple imprisonment for a period of three months will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment as for the appellant to the said period. The fine part of the sentence will remain undisturbed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
1. Leave granted.
2. It is the admitted case that the appellant drove a bus during the morning of 31.7.1995 and knocked down a 75 years old lady who died subsequently on account of the injuries sustained by her. The trial court convicted the appellant under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years. This was confirmed by the appellate court. When he filed a revision before the High Court, a learned single judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to RI for one year.
3. An endeavour was made to show that speed is not a criteria when a stage carriage bus was moving on the road. We would have appreciated the argument if the location of the accident was also favourable to the appellant. We have come across from evidence that the accident happened in a bazar. No attempt was made by the appellant to show that during the particular time when the accident happened, the bazar was not bustling with activities. We have no reason to think that the bazar would have remained deserted of traders, hawkers and other people during the morning hours. If so, the appellant was duty bound while driving a bus along that place to slow down the vehicle to such an extent as to be in complete control of the vehicle. Movements of the pedestrians or other people can be expected at any time this way or that at the place and hence, the speed should only have been such that a sudden application of the break should bring a complete stop to the vehicle then and there.
4. A perusal of the mahazar shows that the old lady was dragged by the bus after hitting her for a distance of 22 feet. This shows that the bus was at a high speed through a zone where the speed should have been considerably less.
5. We are not therefore inclined to interfere with the conviction passed by the courts below. Learned counsel then made a plea for reduction of the sentence for which he advanced the admitted case that the lady was trying to go across the road. We do countenance the position that there was a little bit of contribution from the side of the deceased though that is not a permissible defence in an action for rash and negligent driving. Nonetheless, that is a factor which should be taken into consideration while quantifying the sentence.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, we think that simple imprisonment for a period of three months will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of imprisonment as for the appellant to the said period. The fine part of the sentence will remain undisturbed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
